Sunday, October 26, 2014

Your're Now Dangerous And Anti-American If You Disagree On Global Climate Change

Dangerous and anti-American. That's what you are according to a radical, leftist IUPUI professor, Sheila Kennedy, if you share a different view from her and her fellow Global Warming advocates who believe the use of fossil fuels must be outlawed or the Earth's climate will be irreversibly altered to the point it will no longer support human life. Although you can find many credible scientists who argue differing points of view than those shared by her ilk, she believes her views are factually-based and only "know-nothings" like U.S. Rep. Todd Rokita and his base could conceivably have a differing point of view.

My father didn't have any fancy college degrees like Ms. Kennedy, but he was a highly successful farmer who understood weather better than most of the talking Ken and Barbie dolls delivering the weather forecasts on the local television newscasts. The most fundamental thing he understood about weather was that it was cyclical; it wouldn't be Earth if weather patterns were constant. There are short-term weather patterns affecting the Earth's weather only at the margins--the kind that affected his crops yields from year to year, and there are long-term weather patterns that lead to temperature extremes where most of the Earth is covered by ice or submerged in water--the kind he could see in the topography and richness of the land he cultivated caused by the glaciers that once covered our region during earlier ice ages thousands of years ago.

The one thing I've learned from my independent research that is largely supported by science is that cycles of solar activity on our Sun directly impact weather on Earth more than any Earth-originating causes, whether human or otherwise. Emissions from fossil fuels, while significant, have far less impact than the degree of energy output from the Sun impacting Earth. Fossil fuel emissions can't explain why the Earth's magnetic field, which protects us from deadly solar radiation, has been weakening for decades as the magnetic north and south poles have drifted hundreds of miles. Some scientists believe this portends a reversal of the Earth's magnetic poles, something that may occur more frequently than previously thought.

The folks who argue that fossil fuel emissions are causing global warming ignore data that shows the opposite to be true--Earth's average temperatures have actually been declining for some time, likely due to a current solar minimum we are experiencing. Yeah, but what about polar ice melting? What global warming folks won't admit is that most of the melting of ice in the Antarctic is caused by vast subglacial volcanoes that are heating and melting the ice underneath, particularly in the western region where the ice has seen the greatest melting. The so-called Arctic ice death spiral that Al Gore famously predicted would lead to a complete melt-off by now has reversed in recent years with the areas covered by ice and the actual thickness of the ice having recovered dramatically in recent years.

Opponents of fossil fuels are as good at turning a blind eye to the negative environmental impact caused by their favorite green energy sources, such as solar and wind energy, as advocates of fossil fuels. Many of the same toxic chemicals used to manufacture high-tech gadgets are also a byproduct of manufacturing solar array panels, along with the accompanying health risks posed to workers exposed to those toxins. Let's not talk about how much energy is consumed to manufacture solar energy components either because it muddies up the positives a bit as well. Vast solar arrays also impact surrounding wildlife negatively, particularly birds and animals that inhabit the area surrounding solar farms. The lives of birds are cut short when they mistake solar farms for bodies of water and are literally burned alive mid-air from concentrated solar beams. In addition to wreaking havoc on area birds, large wind farms also contribute to warming temperatures near the Earth's surface. As those large turbine blades continue to turn at night when the temperatures normally cool, they cause warmer air aloft to heat up the temperature at the Earth's surface.

It is remarkable that a woman who claims to be an advocate of civil discourse is often the first to castigate people who don't share her views in the most negative terms possible. Ms. Kennedy may not agree with the views of U.S. Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Indiana) and others who share his views, but to suggest he is dangerous and anti-American because he views are different than her's is, well, "dangerous and anti-American." Perhaps Ms. Kennedy has a direct line to God or some other higher power that the rest of us commoners lack which makes her opinions more authoritative than our opinions, but I suspect otherwise.


Anonymous said...

bruh stick to politics and leave the science to scientists

Gary R. Welsh said...

My observations are based on respectable scientists who don't happen to subscribe to a political agenda that is being advanced by the Left in this country for ulterior motives--but they are opinions. Folks like Sheila Kennedy have a right to their opinions but not their own facts.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line is that people like Sheila Kennedy are liberal hacks without the brains God gave a pencil eraser. They are anti-science morons; nothing- not even the facts- are allowed to come before their liberal religion.

Gary, you said it best in this post; no need to me to expound. Global warming has been effectively proved to be a lie.

Why on earth anyone pays an ounce of attention to this out of touch liberal hack is beyond reasonable comprehension. Extremist Democrats like Kennedy are working both nationally and locally to shut down the free flow of discourse... because anyone who has a thought different than what they hold must be silenced.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Anon 7:24, so it's wrong to question scientific theories? Tell that to Einstein who decided to challenge Newtown's theory of gravity with his theory of relativity. Through testing, Einstein was proven to be correct. What if we said back then that Newton's theory, centuries old, was "settled science and couldn't be questioned? There was certainly a heck of a lot stronger scientific consensus in support of Newton's theory than currently supports anthropogenic global warming theory.

The fact is AGW theory is based completely on computer models that make predictions about the future climate. The theory is not based on testing, it is not based on observation. Those climate models are subject to limitations, one of the chief ones being is that they over emphasize the importance of CO2 while not considering a much bigger factor, precipitation. Another limitation is the data fed into those models to make predictions about the future. Obviously not every factor affecting the climate is entered into the models.

CO2 increases have been shown to follow temperature increases by several hundred years, not the other way around. During the last century surface temperatures have warmed substantially more that atmospheric temperatures which is completely the opposite way warming via the greenhouse effect would take place. Gary is right that solar activity is almost certainly the culprit for most of the temperature changes.

Nonetheless, it is a fundamental principle of science that theories be subject to challenge. This politicization of science with respect to the AGW theory is a terrible precedent. I wish it was at least confined to this subject, but unfortunately you're seeing it in several areas.

Anonymous said...

Sheila Kennedy does the Indiana ACLU a horrible disservice. If she's the face and direction of that outfit, they can forget about getting a single dollar of donation from me.

Further, what has she ever done to qualify her to be a professor at IUPUI SPEA? When you walk into Cavanaugh Hall and head to the upper floors, you'll find Ph.D.s with some pretty hairy education credentials.

Here's Sheila Kennedy's credentials:

J.D. cum laude, Indiana University School of Law
B.S. with honors, Indiana University
A.A. Stephens College for Women

She has a law degree, an common and shallow professional-school credential established only to make work for some lawyers who don't wish to practice, yet still wish to be paid handsomely.

This unimpressive academic credential, her sole graduate degree, earns her $115,361.00.

Talk about grossly overpaid. Can we not find a SPEA professor for $45,000? This bloated salary is an example of just walking off with Indiana public resources.

SPEA is a haven for solpisists who are incapable of arguing their positions to anyone outside their circle and who frequently suffer rotator cuff injury for excessively patting themselves on the back. It's a school of questionable worth, uncertain whether it even exceeds the coloring-book classes taught in the School of Education.

Anonymous said...

I thought either dementia or senility had set in to "Old Blue Hair" some time ago....

Isn't it amazing what tenure can do for a "professor"? Perhaps Universities need to make tenure a status under continuous review???

Anonymous said...

reading some of the comments here I have to wonder about the participants understanding of the empirical method. Sheila Kennedy a radical HA! Give me a break, such are the limits of the debate today.

Anonymous said...

Try having Sheila as a professor. The woman can't hide her bias against you if you don't agree with her political opinions.